Student-Centered Foreign Language Teaching
(Introduction
to
Foundations of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning:
Psychological Aspects )
Leon A. James
Center for Comparative Psycholinguistics
University of Illinois, Urbana
(In Eberhard Reichmann (Ed.), The Teaching of German:À Problems and Methods. Published by the
National Carl Schurz Association Teaching Aid Project (Winchell
Company, Philadelphia), 1970. Part II, Chapter 1.]
The relationship between the practitioner and the researcher is usually
a difficult one, and it is rendered even more problematic in this instance --
between the FL teacher and the psychologist or linguist -- because of the
tenuous contribution which learning theory and linguistics have been able so far
to make to the practical concerns of the L teacher. Ernest Hilgard, in the
article reprinted here, is not alone among the eminent experts in learning
theory to caution that the contributions which psychological research has been
able to make so far to the instruction process has not been overwhelming; the
remarks of the eminent linguists, Noam Chomsky, also reproduced here, are not
only cautionary about this relationship, but are quite skeptical and
pessimistic with respect to the ultimate contribution which psychologists and
linguists can make to the educational process of L teaching. John Carrol, the
well-known educational psychologist, is understandably more optimistic, but the
review of the literature he presents only leads to the unsatisfactory conclusion
that all this body of research is "inconclusive.?
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ To the L teacher who seeks not only
guidance from the ?expert? for innovative approaches to teaching but also
legitimacy from the academic researcher and theoretician for the practical
procedures that he is following, such a state of affairs can be confusing and
discouraging. And indeed it is. But the issue of responsibility on both sides
must clearly be realized and kept in mind. The researcher has the
responsibility to indicate the limitations of the extrapolation process from
laboratory to classroom and must not claim for his research and theory the
power of generalization and applicability they do not in fact possess. The
teacher and educational administrator
have the responsibility of justifying their instructional methods and
procedures on their sole merit, in terms of their consequences, and not in
terms of their congruity or affinity with a particular theory. I think it has
been too often the case in the past that techniques, methods, approaches,
procedures of L teaching have been followed and legitimized by an appeal to the
validity of particular psychological theories. This has been the case with the
debate on the AL ?habit structure? approach versus the code?learning or
rule?learning approach. In retrospect it appears quite clear that all this
effort and energy in polemics and research has been an idle activity. We are no
further ahead today than we were 15 to 20 years ago.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The FL
teaching enterprise is currently in the grips of a great crisis. Although the
number of students at the elementary and secondary levels who are enrolled in a
FL course has consistently risen and is now quickly approaching the saturation
point (at the secondary level), the results of
this massive educational effort in FL teaching have been quite disappointing:
only a very small fraction of the student body ever achieves meaningful levels
of skill in the use of a second language and the majority of students view
their FL experience as disappointing: and largely useless.1 This is
indeed a sad state of affairs and it is imperative that we understand why we
are where we are and what we can do about it.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ There are
two principal causes, it seems to me, behind our present dilemma, and there are
two solutions that, I think, will extirpate us from this crisis. I shall
discuss the two causes under the heading ? Unifunctionalism within mass
education,? and the two solutions under ?Multi?functionalism within
compensatory education.
Unifunctionalism within Mass Education
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Prior to
the 1940?s, the FL curriculum was characterized by a unifunctionalism of both
method and goals: to teach a reading ability through the explicit learning of
grammar rules. In the 1940?s, largely as a result of the war effort, there
developed a set of procedures initiated in intensive L courses, which later
became known as the ?New Key? approach (or AL approach) as practiced in the
school curriculum. It is important to realize that the audio lingual method as
it came to be practiced in the schools differed in two essential respects from
the war time intensive courses from which the AL method arose: (1) the AL
method was extended to mass education where the teacher?student ratio jumped by
a factor of 10 to 20 or more; (2) the actual (as opposed to theoretical or
fictitious) goals of the AL method changed from ?the ability to use oral
language in a realistic communicative context?
to ?the ability to obtain a passing grade on a discreetÀ point L test.? It is these two
characteristics of the AL method, as it departed from the intensive L course,
that is the causes of the present crisis in the FL curriculum.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The first
of these characteristics disregards two very basic facts, which the intensive
course was able to take into account through selection and the small
student?teacher ratio (as well as massed vs. distributed practice ?? but that is another issue, see footnote 1). These two facts are:
(a) not everyone has either the interest or the aptitude to acquire a speaking
knowledge of a second language within the limited time requirements available
in school; and (b) even where there is interest and aptitude, there are not
sufficient opportunities for practice available in the classroom situation to
develop meaningful communicative competence.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The second
characteristic which the AL method adopted in contradistinction to the
intensive L course, namely the use of discreet?point tests, had the unfortunate
consequence of dislocating the relationship between what was taught and what
was the ultimate purpose of learning: a student who did well on the L test did
not necessarily have a comparable ability in the use of the L in a
communicative context.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The
results of these two characteristics of the AL method are thus the causes of
the present crisis: generations of students were, and are still being, exposed
to FL teaching procedures which are unsuited for their interest and aptitude,
and whatever they do learn as a result of this exposure, is clearly
unsatisfactory from the teacher?s point of view who is, after all, interested
in getting them to be able to use
the language in some communicative sense.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Multi?functionalism
within Compensatory Education The two requirements that will rectify the
present unsatisfactory situation are clearly these: (1) to change the
unifunctional character of the current FL curriculum in the direction of
greater diversification of goals; and (2) to change the current evaluation
procedures away from the use of discreet?point L tests and towards the
introduction of tests of communicative competence or L use.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ It is important to clarify just what is involved in these
two propositions. ?Diversification of goals? refers to the curriculum
not the course. In fact, at the course level, greater rather than less
specialization is indicated. A course whose goal is to ?teach a speaking and a
reading knowledge? of language is both too vague and too broad to be
successful. It is significant that the highly successful intensive L courses of
the Foreign Service Institute state their goals in terms of the ability to
engage in specific communicative acts rather than in terms of ?knowledge? (e.g.
to carry out a conversation with a native speaker on the technical subject
specified, or to act as an interpreter in a war zone village, etc.). This is an
essential requirement since experience shows that ability in one communicative
context does not readily and automatically carry over to another context. Given
limited time, interest, and aptitude, the training situation, to be effective)
must be geared to the development of specific and limited goals stated in terms
relevant to the real life situation in which the acquired ability will be used.
Furthermore, under conditions of mass education, there will be maximum
variability in terms of interest, aptitude and student willingness to spend
time in study. This means that the overall curriculum available to them must be
made up of a large number of diverse courses each of which will have a very
limited and specialized goal. The evaluation of student progress and achievement
must be made in terms of their ability to function within a range of
such communicative acts. Each student will determine for himself, with the aid
of proper counseling from the FL teacher, the range and extent of goals he is
to study, taking into account his interests, his aptitude, the time he has
available for study, the educational requirements he is to meet, the available
resources of his school, and so on. This is what is involved in the concept of
?individuated? or ?compensatory? education in their realistic sense; that is, not a 1 to 1 teacher?student ratio (that is
impossible), but a responsiveness of the system to the individual needs
of students.
How realistic is the solution offered
here? The introduction of compensatory education with a diversified curriculum
made up of courses with a limited communicative objective no doubt presents
many difficult problems, many of which have not as yet been solved, but it
seems to me that in part, at least, it can be implemented immediately. We have the
technology and the know-how: we can measure FL aptitude on a routine basis; we
are aware of what some of the motivational and attitudinal factors are that
affect second L learning; we have made great strides in applied linguistics and
have sophisticated audio?visual aids at our disposal; we have learned a great
deal about instructional programming and teaching devices; we have field
resources available in many instances (travel
abroad programs, L camps, summer L
courses), and so on. This know-how will go a long way if supplemented by
willingness, imagination, and courage on the part of the individual teacher,
the supporting administrative staff, and the larger community. Compensatory
education is within our grasp. Will we have the courage to try it out? On it
hinges the future of the FL teaching enterprise.
The Teacher?s Role
In his article, Ernest Hilgard
discusses certain important matters, which point the way towards the teacher?s
role in improving FL instruction. As I pointed out early in this Introduction,
basic or ?pure? research is of limited value in this respect, and Hilgard
discusses the ?technological? steps that must precede ?invention? and
?strategies of innovation.? It would be a grave mistake to conclude that
because traditional experimental methods in psychology have failed that
therefore the teacher has no other recourse but to revert to impressionistic,
authoritative, and opinionated positions. Experience, rather than experiment,
is the most valuable resource the teacher has, granted, but it must be
supplemented by systematic observation procedures borrowed from the scientific
and technological disciplines. The teacher must use available techniques that
are helpful to his goals (e.g. aptitude tests, attitude questionnaires),
discard those that are a liability (e.g. discreet?point L tests that are too
broad and artificial to be indicative of ability to use L), and invent new
techniques he needs (e.g. assessing communicative competence in specific
contexts). The future of effective FL teaching does not rest with developments
in linguistics and psychology. It rests, rather, with the teachers s increased know?how to
expose the student to the set of conditions that is just right for him.
Footnotes
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1This conclusion is
justified and documented in James?s, L. A. Foreign Language Learning:À A Psycholinguistic Analysis.À Rowley, Mass.:À Newbury House Publishers, 1970.À
The arguments presented in this introduction are further developed and
elaborated there.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2Discreet-point
tests are predicated upon the assumption that knowledge ofÀ L consists of a set of discreet facts at
various levels (e.g. phonological, syntactic, lexical) and that this knowledge
can be assessed by bringing together in a test a sample of these facts and
determining how many of these facts the student knows.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3This is
true even for the teacher who would settle for a ?reading knowledge.?À Evidence indicates that few students are
sufficiently motivated and capable to continue reading in the FL independently
of course requirements.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4The
inadequacies of the present FL curriculum are not to viewed as an indication of
a great weakness in our ability to teach L per se.À The technology of L teaching is at an
advanced stage:À under best conditions
we can state in advance the number of hours required to teach any L (this is
usually in the order of several hundred hours ? shorter by a factor of up to 10
when compared to the time required to learn the first L).À The difficulty, then, is the adaptation of
this technology to the school situation.